Tag Archives: Ads

Evaluating the Ads — Hickenlooper vs. Beauprez

In this week’s installment of Evaluating the Ads, we’ll look at a race for Governor.  The state?  Colorado.  Governor John Hickenlooper (D) is finishing up his first term.  His opponent is former Congressman Bob Beauprez (R).  This race is a close one.

Here is Hickenlooper’s first ad from a few weeks ago.

Hickenlooper mentions that he will not run any negative ads.  Do you believe that this is a good strategy?

Here is an ad from Beauprez’s campaign:

Images matter in political ads.  What images are used in this ad and why are they used?

Evaluating Campaign Ads — Hagan vs. Tillis

In this week’s installment of “Evaluating Campaign Ads”, we travel to North Carolina for a hotly contested United States Senate seat.  The incumbent is Democrat Kay Hagan.  Her opponent is Republican Thom Tillis.  He is North Carolina’s House Speaker.

Senator Hagan’s ad is up first.

Who is this ad aimed at?  Does this ad appeal to you?

Here is Speaker Tillis’s ad.

Is this an effective way of utilizing contrasting data in an ad?

For more insight into the race, here is a recent Elon Poll.

Evaluating Campaign Ads – Pryor vs. Cotton

In this week’s installment of “Evaluating Campaign Ads”, we’ll take a look at two ads that have been running in Arkansas.  Senator Mark Pryor (D) is up for re-election and his opponent is Congressman Tom Cotton (R).  Both ads shown below are what might be called “negative” or “contrast” ads.

The first ad is from Representative Cotton.

The following ad is from Senator Pryor.

What are your thoughts on these two ads?  What clues do you see that identify these ads as “negative” or “contrast”?

 

Evaluating Campaign Ads — Braley vs. Ernst

This is 2014 and it is an election year.  Every week, I will post ads from the Democratic and Republican candidates for office in those races that are considered to be competitive.  If there are third party candidates running, then I will post their ads as well.  This week’s two ads come from Iowa in the race for retiring US Senator Tom Harkin’s seat.  The Democrat in the race is Congressman Bruce Braley.  The Republican is Joni Ernst, a member of the Iowa State Senate.

Both ads, in this installment, are positive.

**What is Congressman Braley trying to convey in this ad?

**What message is State Senator Ernst trying to make in this ad?

**What are your overall impressions of each ad?

 

Negativity in Elections

Do any negative ads stand out from previous elections in your mind?  You can also visit The Living Room Candidate for some historical ads from past Presidential campaigns.

If You Look Closely…Something Was Missing

Television ads are all about what you see and what you don’t see.  There is something missing in this ad.  Can you figure it out?  If you can, could you explain why it is missing?

What Makes A Negative Ad…Negative?

Not all negative political ads have to be accompanied by the requisite gloom and doom music and grainy black and white photos of a candidate.  Take this ad, for example, run by an independent organization (independent expenditure) for a US Senate race in Utah.

What makes this ad, “negative”?

Short and to the Point?

Perhaps Senator George McGovern‘s team felt that a :60 ad highlighting the lowlights of the Nixon Administration would resonate with the public in 1972.  Maybe this ad is a little too long.  Could it have been done better in 30 seconds? When the Presidential Election of 1972 was all said and done, President Richard Nixon (R) soundly defeated his Democratic opponent in a landslide.  McGovern went on to win only one state, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.

The Use of Humor in Ads

John Gregg (D) of Indiana fought an uphill battle for Governor in 2012 against Congressman Mike Pence (R).  Gregg’s ads at times were humorous with serious messages lying within them.  Here is an example:

In your opinion, does an ad, with humor, appeal to you as a voter?

George McGovern and the Primary System

Former Democratic United States Senator George McGovern died early Sunday morning, October 21, 2012.  He was 90.  He leaves a legacy of being a champion of liberal causes in the United States.  McGovern is also remembered for losing to Richard Nixon in the 1972 Presidential election by a landslide.  He tried again in 1984, but was beaten in the primaries that year. What George McGovern should be remembered for, however, is his role in how we nominate our Presidential nomination process.

In 1968, the Democratic Party nomination for President was in disarray.  Senator Robert Kennedy, the likely nominee of the party, had been assassinated after the California primary.  The candidate with the most delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota.  Having the most delegates gave McCarthy the inside track to the nomination.  McCarthy was deemed to be too much of a “peace candidate” for President by the Democratic establishment.  So much so, that party leaders including President Lyndon Johnson and Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley took liberties with the delegate selection process and worked to nominate Vice President Hubert Humphrey for President.  Humphrey did not compete in any primaries.  After an arduous primary season, Democratic voters had been shut out essentially in the Presidential nomination process.

This is where George McGovern comes in.  He, and Minnesota Representative Donald Fraser, headed a commission that would streamline the nomination process so that voters would have a direct say on who their nominee for President would be.  The McGovern-Fraser Commission, as it was informally called, was charged in part with making sure that party leaders would not work behind closed doors to manipulate the nomination process.

National party convention delegates were to be chosen through direct primary elections.  Previously to the Commission, primary results were binding in some states and non-binding in others.  In those states with binding results, the number of delegates sent to the national convention was known by the public.  In those states with non-binding primaries, the primary looked more like a beauty contest.  In those cases, the delegate selection process was more likely to be determined by party leaders and not the voters.  In some states, delegates were chosen in state conventions.  Convention attendees tended to favor party leader-backed candidates.  Outsider or anti-establishment candidates for President (or any office) had little chance of gaining their party’s nomination.

McGovern-Fraser created uniformity in the delegate selection process.  Party leaders now had less of say in the selection of a Presidential nominee.  Primaries have been the deciding factor in the nominating process since McGovern-Fraser.  McGovern was the first to benefit from the change in the rules, as he became the Democratic Party’s nominee for President in 1972.

Not since 1968 has either party had a contested nomination for President.  It is highly unlikely that the major parties will have another convention like the one in Chicago where party leaders ignored the will of people and selected a candidate for President who did not run in one single primary.  George McGovern made the process simpler and gave the public its rightful say in selecting its Presidential nominees.  For that, George McGovern should be remembered.

You can follow the link below for a 1972 campaign ad for George McGovern.

George McGovern Voting Booth Ad

What are your thoughts on the McGovern’s legacy? What are your thoughts on the McGovern ad?